Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 15:44 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >krw wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> There are others that don't "need" a "living wage". > > > > > > > > > > > >Very rich ppl ? > > > > > > > > > > Dependents. > > > > > > > > I doubt there are many who fit into that category any more who could afford to > > > > work for peanuts. > > > > > > Afford? Don't be stupid. > > > > Afford to in the sense that they're working for 'pin money' as their other expenses > > are paid for. > > Wierd use of "afford"? They can "afford" to do nothing. That is true of some ppl yes. That use of the word 'afford' is perfectly well understood over here. > > > > > As in children and teenagers and humans who > > > > > are about to have to support themselves or be forever > > > > > on welfare. > > > > > > > > Eh ? > > > > > > You'd prefer they not work, thus not gain those skills, because the > > > jobs aren't worth the "living wage". Next step; welfare office. > > > > On the contrary. A living wage avoids the need to apply for benefits. > > No, working at a job that pays a "living wage", whatever that is, > keeps one from going hungry. Welfare ("benefits") is for > socialists. Even the USA has welfare benefits. Graham
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 15:51 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Uh46h.13917$B31.5251(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:d7564$4558c674$4fe7476$806(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:ej9mjg$8qk_005(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <6-CdnUDZfv7m1crYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ej73hc$8qk_003(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>>>In article <4556023D.65907648(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What is really happening >>>>>>>>is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the >>>>>>>>most expensive health care facility for treatment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why would they do that ? >>>>>> >>>>>>To get drugs to fix their problem. Doctors don't take >>>>>>new patients who are already sick even if one has >>>>>>medical insurance. For a long time, the doctors around >>>>>>wouldn't take new patients who were on Medicare. I don't if >>>>>>that has changed. >>>>> >>>>>You see, a national health care system would cure this problem. >>>> >>>>No, it would not. A single-payer system would make the problem >>>>so big it could never be fixed. >>> >>> >>> Nope. You are incorrect here. Partly you are incorrect because you >>> refuse to listen to what anyone else says and partly you are incorrect >>> because you have no frame of reference to work from and assume a >>> nationalised health care would be a monopoly business-style insurance >>> company. >>> >>> Nationalised health care does not suffer from the problems you mentioned >>> so I have no idea why you think it would make it worse. >> >> Nationalized anything is a form of socialism. Ok, so what? You have a nationalised military - bloody socialists. As it stands, how does saying "it is a form of socialism" mean it will be worse? > There are >> those of us who hold the well supported understanding >> that delf-regulating competitive capitalism works better. > > Yeah, it's working *great* in the case of the US health care system. Unsettled will never grasp this because he is obsessed with maintaining the status quo and denying every bit of evidence which is presented. If he was an Iraqi he would be giving press interviews about there being no Americans in Baghdad as the walls collapsed. >> In the US the law requires every hospital emergency room to >> accommodate and assist anyone who comes to their doorstep >> in an emergency situation. They are required only to provide >> such services as will stabilize the patient's condition while >> getting them out of the life-threatening situation. > > Yes. What happens is that poor people cannot afford the minimal health > care they need (routine doctor visits, inexpensive medicines, etc.), so > they let things get worse until their condition becomes life-threatening, > when it costs much, much more to treat, even just to get them back out of > the life-threatening situation. This is just a small part of the reason > that health care costs are so ridiculous in the US. Neither unsettled nor /BAH seem to grasp this. In medicine prevention is the key. Providing a last minute life support for people who can make it to the ER is not the right thing. I am intrigued that they dont see this "method" of healthcare (for want of better words) is costing much, much more than prevention and the costs of the expensive treatment of these poor is _still_ being spread over the paying elements of the population. If they paid for preventative treatment, the ER costs would be a lot less. >> So there's a form of socialism built into this even in the US. > > Now you're getting it. Pure capitalism has never been proven to work on a > large scale for any extended period of time. So you accept minimal > socialist incursions that account for the inefficiencies in the pure > capitalist system. > > A wise man once said "Never do anything out of principle alone", I think > it was Ben Franklin. Rejecting something that has socialist aspects just > because it is not pure capitalism falls in that category. Logic is not part of unsettled's argument tools.
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 15:58 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4558D5BD.3C15D376(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. >> >> >> >> It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth >> >> of housecleaning and they get it. >> > >> > They do ? >> > >> > I'm sure they wouldn't here. >> >> They do in some places - mainly where people are inordinately rich and >> strapped for time. I know people who pay for their laundry to be washed >> and >> ironed for them. The mind does, indeed, boggle. > > I can't see the 'going rate' being $200 / hour though. Not for a single person although I have worked for a guy who did pay around ?3k per week for his cleaning services. Sadly I never enquired as to the size of his house, how many cleaners or what the cleaners did (or wore...) This guy paid that sort of money as well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6137550.stm
From: lucasea on 13 Nov 2006 16:22 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Df56h.13997$B31.9735(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:jeydnb5mmd13R8XYRVnyrA(a)pipex.net... >> >> Unsettled will never grasp this because he is obsessed with maintaining >> the status quo and denying every bit of evidence which is presented. If >> he was an Iraqi he would be giving press interviews about there being no >> Americans in Baghdad as the walls collapsed. > > I don't know how the UK press reported this, but during the air and ground > offensives in 2003, there was a fellow who appeared daily on the TV > denying that the walls were falling down around him (I suspect this is > what you're alluding to.) The US press labelled him "Comical Ali", in > deference to Saddam's leader of the chemical weapons program, "Chemical > Ali". It really was amusing watching his daily denials. > > >>> Yes. What happens is that poor people cannot afford the minimal health >>> care they need (routine doctor visits, inexpensive medicines, etc.), so >>> they let things get worse until their condition becomes >>> life-threatening, when it costs much, much more to treat, even just to >>> get them back out of the life-threatening situation. This is just a >>> small part of the reason that health care costs are so ridiculous in the >>> US. >> >> Neither unsettled nor /BAH seem to grasp this. In medicine prevention is >> the key. Providing a last minute life support for people who can make it >> to the ER is not the right thing. > > Yep. On the one hand, I can easily see Jonathan Kirwan's point that > insurance isn't meant to pay the daily bills, it's to take care of the > disasters that, were they not covered, would destroy peoples' financial > lives. In fact, this is how I treat my automobile insurance, and whenever > any electronics shop tries to get me to buy an "extended warrantee" on a > toy--computer, TV, etc. If loss of that "toy" won't endagner my life, or > even grossly inconvenience me, then getting "insurance" or an "extended > warrantee" on that item is tantamount to playing roulette. Since the > house sets the odds, I will absolutely guarantee you that the "expectation > value" of that transaction is that I will lose money. *Large* amounts of > money. I hate replying to my own posts, but one more thing to add: The genesis of a system where all health care is paid by insurance, even the small and preventative things, appears to be largely based in the practice that developed sometime this century, of using health care benefits as part of the compensation package for employees of larger companies. There, it isn't just the insurance company reshuffling my money, but it is rather part of the compensation my employer pays me for doing my job. That was well and good before it became bloody expensive, but now that costs have begun to skyrocket, larger and larger companies are deciding that either they can't afford to insure their employees' health any more, or they can't afford to shoulder so much of the cost of that insurance, and need to have the employees pay more and more of it. I envision a day when employers simply stop offering health insurance as a benefit altogether--much like many have done with pensions and other benefits. Eric Lucas
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bjarne_B=E4ckstr=F6m?= on 13 Nov 2006 17:28
T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Df56h.13997$B31.9735(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > news:jeydnb5mmd13R8XYRVnyrA(a)pipex.net... > >> > >> Unsettled will never grasp this because he is obsessed with maintaining > >> the status quo and denying every bit of evidence which is presented. If > >> he was an Iraqi he would be giving press interviews about there being no > >> Americans in Baghdad as the walls collapsed. > > > > I don't know how the UK press reported this, but during the air and ground > > offensives in 2003, there was a fellow who appeared daily on the TV > > denying that the walls were falling down around him (I suspect this is > > what you're alluding to.) The US press labelled him "Comical Ali", in > > deference to Saddam's leader of the chemical weapons program, "Chemical > > Ali". It really was amusing watching his daily denials. > > Yep. He was called Comical Ali here as well. :-) > Aka Baghdad Bob. |